leagueoflegendsfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Highlights and Signatures
There was recently some confusion regarding user rights and highlights. User rights have nothing to do with highlights. I feel as if highlights are becoming a really big deal for no reason. I am not allowed to change the color of my signature (See here) simply because yellow equals bureaucrat, even though the underlining of someone's userpage link shows one's user rights. Signatures are not meant to be taken so seriously, as they're simply an easier way to get to someones userpage. I propose that we allow users to choose what color they want on their signatures and/or remove the highlights from everyone with user rights' pages. 19:52, August 6, 2012 (UTC) :I could see the benefit of having color differentiation if users wanted to easily tell the difference between Bureaucrats and Admins. However, in practice, that seems like a moot reason. I highly doubt most users even know the difference. I don't think there is a particularly compelling reason to keep the highlight rule in place. That being said, if it was decided by consensus, than it seems only fair that the rule stays until it is overwritten by consensus, by either admins or users. My vote would be to keep the highlights, but get rid of the coloring rule. - Jorge (profile)•(talk) 20:30, August 6, 2012 (UTC) ::The problem with the highlights is that new users/current users don't even know the difference of the colors off-hand. To them it's probably just a pretty color that they want to know how to get. I think we should at least remove rollback highlights and make the crat/admin/mod highlights the same color. Not only will it rid the community with coloring complications, it will also promote the idea that we have been pursuing for a while – equality. 20:36, August 6, 2012 (UTC) :::I'm also ok with that idea. I think most users would get that. - Jorge (profile)•(talk) 20:52, August 6, 2012 (UTC) I'm going to do something in my new spirit of sharp, in your face, change/experiments; I'm just going to go with Tech's suggestion and remove user page highlights and let people choose whatever sig color they want. Depending on how the community reacts we will see if that will stay or not. 22:36, August 6, 2012 (UTC) :Context/fortherecords: the issue stems from Tech using a signature color formerly used to denote bureaucrats on the wiki. This can be seen on User talk:Technology Wizard/archives. I brought the issue up on July 6, considering it misrepresentative of his user rights level, and Neon also found issue in early August. And now we have this! Wiki drama~ 11:16, August 7, 2012 (UTC) ::I don't see how community consensus is wiki drama. The point of this forum is to either change our highlights (or remove them) and establish a policy for signatures. 17:36, August 7, 2012 (UTC) Do you know how many colors there are to choose from? Enough to not use one associated to rights. Besides, not very many people even know how to change the sig color. And saying that "To them it's just a pretty color that they want to know how to get." is just plain dumb. Not everyone is like you Tech, and if there are others, I would like to have proof of there existence. I'd like to add that the highlight (outside of sigs) is far from useless. 23:30, August 6, 2012 (UTC) :Feel free to read over things twice. I said that not everyone even knows what the highlights mean, and that most just want to figure out what it is because it looks attractive. I also said that we should remove rollback highlights (since they aren't important) and uniform the mod+ highlights since we all share the same job when it comes to be contacted for vandalism questions. 23:54, August 6, 2012 (UTC) ::I have. about that first part: "I would like to have proof of there existence." About the Rollback, there was a vote for that some time ago. It could be re-voted, but I'm not sure the results would change. And for what concerns unifying the colors of Mod+, well, let the community decide. Start a vote. 03:26, August 7, 2012 (UTC) :::I forgot a word. Rollbacks don't have any other job besides rollbacking vandalism. Moderators, administrators, and bureaucrats all can block users and delete pages or comments, which is something definitely worth being contacted for, and is why we should all have the same highlight. That will not only provide the idea that someone with a highlighted name is one of the site moderators or administrators, but it will aid our itinerary to attain adequation. 04:08, August 7, 2012 (UTC) ::::Could you elaborate on this itinerary? You've piqued my interest. 13:33, August 9, 2012 (UTC) Guess how the color of signatures are determined by default: By user rights. Avoid using yellow, Tech. You're just trying to make people confuse you for a Crat. LionsLight (talk) 00:13, August 7, 2012 (UTC) :Actually, I am using yellow globally, not just here. I'm not a bureaucrat, nor do I wish to become one. Actually, Neon not only doesn't want me using yellow, but any other color besides green. I like the wiki with no highlights actually, feel much more relaxed. 01:14, August 7, 2012 (UTC) ::That's an invalid reason, as you are using a different /Sig page on every wiki, and can easily change the local one. Also, grammatically, "rolling back" would be correct, over "rollbacking". 11:16, August 7, 2012 (UTC) :::If you didn't know, you aren't allowed to use a template for your signature globally, which I don't. Yes, it's a valid reason. I don't have different signatures on every wiki that I edit, I like to be consistent. Roll backing or rollbacking, I would hope that you have the capability to understand what I meant. 17:36, August 7, 2012 (UTC) Consider colorblind people. Since we can't decide on colors, why don't we just use :after { content: " (userlevel)"; }? The :after pseudo-element is supported in CSS 2.0. No colors required. --BryghtShadow 07:59, August 10, 2012 (UTC) Secondary Discussion I would like to make a somewhat different proposal. I propose that we use a goldish/yellowish color for mods, admins, and crats for reasons stated above. 05:06, August 9, 2012 (UTC) :Gee, I wonder why you chose yellow. Also, posterior discussion is an unfortunate section title and goldish looks like goldfish. 13:33, August 9, 2012 (UTC) If any, I actually prefer customizable colors, as long as the specified color that represented a certain user right level is prevented. However if customizable color is causing such a problem, I would prefer to have our default user right color as the only legal color for our signatures. No doubt colorful signatures are always a plus, but I'm pretty sure it's not gonna worth the trouble that it may invite. On the side note, I think that Mod, Admin and Crat each serves different purposes: * Moderator generally do all sorts of moderating, and general patrolling for vandals and/or inappropriate comments/edits. * Admin are able to do the above, with greater strength when deciding something that requires a certain level of authority to process. Also, Admin have access to more logs such as Protection Log, etc. * Crats generally are the highest qualified user right level for decision making and such, as they are one of the most experienced in terms of managing the wiki. Also, user right promotion/demotion should always involves them. As with above, I don't think they should share the similar color, so the current Yellow, Green, Purple should work fine as it is. 17:22, August 9, 2012 (UTC) :While they do have different abilities, giving different colored highlights is a step farther away from promoting equality on the wiki. If anyone wanted to contact someone for a block or deletion, they know who to go to (someone with a highlighted user name). Having 3 different highlights would probably confuse someone. 17:24, August 9, 2012 (UTC) ::But each level of moderation has different permissions. For example, I would go to a Moderator if I merely wanted to report a vandal, but I need to find an Administrator to request a page to be protected/unprotected, and then I should be finding a Bureaucrat if I felt a Mod or Admin wasn't doing their job properly. Different colors would be helpful to distinguish between them right off the bat. LionsLight (talk) 17:30, August 9, 2012 (UTC) :::The whole point of highlights is for contact purposes only, as administrators are considered a logical first point of contact. We don't need everyone to be identifiable with a wide variety of pretty colours; it's just confusing for anyone looking for a point of contact. 17:34, August 9, 2012 (UTC) ::::If Mods, Admins, and Crats had the same colored highlights, I think that would be fine (though I really like my orange-brownish color). My only concern is that it may make it more diffult for someone to specifically find the administrator for a particular issue. Cidem1324 (talk) 06:40, August 10, 2012 (UTC) :::::@Cidem Isn't a benefit of changing signatures so that new users will more easily be able to identify someone with the appropriate level of power for protecting/blocking etc ? If the colour for M/A/B are the same colour, it would allow new users/unfamiliar uses to contact them better, however if we are looking for a specific person with rights, wouldnt their user page just be able to tell us? --Zaroph (talk) 12:18, August 11, 2012 (UTC) ::::::Per Zaroph. Highlights are meant to quickly locate someone that may be of assistance, anything more specific can be found on their userpage. 17:52, August 13, 2012 (UTC)